--- On Sun, 3/13/11, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
> Kyle, <OFF-TOPIC Sunday Sermon> I have posted this particular OFF > TOPIC commentary in vortex-l because I have perceived the fact that > there are individuals on this list that have shown interest in what's > been happening in Madison, Wisconsin. Who? When? We've been following Focardi and Rossi, and other suitable subjects as per the Vortex rules. > You may agree or not agree pertaining to a democratic right to bargain > collectively and how that right was suddenly trashed back on March 9 Sigh. Fine, I will *partially* state my opinion. I do not agree with them losing collective bargaining rights. They should have their rights as employees, and the right to unionize. I am not on either side, however, and do think that there is nothing sacred about being a teacher. I do not know the dynamics of the whole situation, what percentage of healthcare/pensions they are paying for, but I will say that, if these are indeed tough times, we all have to do our part. That probably means having to pay more for healthcare personally, pay more for your pension personally, and (unpopular as it is to say this), tax increases for the wealthy. But just because someone is a teacher should not exempt them from having to tighten the belt. If they have to pay for healthcare, at least part of it, cry me a river: I have to pay for mine, and it does damned little. Further, given the education of this nation's kids, someone is not doing their job. I used to be a student. I can count the good teachers I had on one hand with fingers left over. In college, it got better. But perhaps pay based on performance is in order. If it works for a mechanic, then it can work for a teacher. But again, if they lost complete collective bargaining rights, this is a serious step backwards. But moderation on both sides must be there, and all must sacrifice if we are to get out of this mess. > through an unethical procedural maneuver, performed in less than two > hours official notice – a situation which must now go to the courts in > order to get this slight-of-hand action straighten out. And the "other side" doesn't do this? Don't be picky, neither side of the political spectrum plays nice, this is American politics. And for the less astute reader, no, I am not on that other side since they made it blatantly clear they didn't want me either. <snip> > less than 26% of the entire vote turned down Obama's stimulus money that > > would go to fund an energy efficient high-speed rail system. Scott > called it "wasteful" and vowed not to use state funds for costly > maintenance and upkeep of high-speed rail. How about funding better energy PRODUCTION? Getting us off imported oil, using domestic resources better (be it nuclear, solar, induced handwavium, etc.)? I doubt Walker'd do that, but you should see the point here. I don't know much about Walker, but I wonder how he got elected with 26% of the vote. I am guessing there were more than two people running, and he got the majority vote. Whether or not he's a good or bad guy, I don't know. But if he *did* get the majority vote by the people, well... democracy sucks, don't it? Unless you're on the side that won. > as apparently indicted by your unique feelings on this matter. I'm rather doubting they're unique, but your reality is what you choose it to be, as is mine. > Kyle, I respect your right to apparently disagree with my opinions, > though to be honest it's not exactly clear to me what you are > specifically disagreeing about. You seem to be expressing an opinion > that I'm violating the rules of vortex-l etiquette. Nevertheless, I > think it would be democratic of you to respect my right to express my > opinion on the matter in vortex-l. Stop the car, man! I didn't even say if I was disagreeing with your view. Some of it, perhaps, but not all of it. You certainly have your First Amendment right to say as you will, and that's certainly good. To paraphrase Voltaire, I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it. However... this list technically isn't a democracy. Look at it this way: if I came into your home and started saying things that offended you, you'd kick my ass out, and rightly so. This is Bill's home, and I reckon it would be nice to kick the muddy shoes off before we come in. All your posting got in replies, for the most part, was a bunch of mad posters and the beginnings of hostility. Bill specifically posted saying this stuff was banned. So *I* am in the wrong for standing up and saying we should do what the *list owner* said to do? Take a few minutes and think about that. > As to the implication that I'm behaving like a Jackass, well, I've been > > called far worse objects. Nevertheless, that appears to be your opinion, > > and it is your democratic right to express it. You didn't read what I wrote! Allow me to repost what I said: "And before anyone says "who are you to tell anyone what to do", I learned my lesson before, and will point out that I was not the one saying in effect, "don't let the door hit you on the way out." I am not the only one here capable of being a jackass, it seems. No, Steven, it wasn't you who said this." The sentence "I am not....it seems" immediately followed the one quoting a different poster, which I assume you'd know given that you did not write the "don't let the door" statement in anything you posted. FURTHERMORE, I followed it up with "No, Steven, it wasn't you who said this." Further clarifying that it was not you I was talking about. THEREFORE I did not call you a jackass, but the actions of someone/someothers else. Why in the /hell/ am I having to explain this? Why didn't you read what I said? Did you even read /any/ of it? I did not call YOU a jackass! I am sorry to repeat this over and over, but apparently I have to for it to sink in! Now I am going to sit back and see what else is misread in what I wrote, assuming it is read, and not just skimmed as before. I need a drink. --K
